Rogers Media uses cookies for personalization, to customize its online advertisements, and for other purposes. Learn more or change your cookie preferences. Rogers Media supports the Digital Advertising Alliance principles. By continuing to use our service, you agree to our use of cookies.

We use cookies (why?) You can change cookie preferences. Continued site use signifies consent.

Against leaders debates

Here we go again. Just like last time, the “consortium” has made a decision not to invite Elizabeth May to the leaders’ debates. And just like last time, after initial protestations that the decision is entirely up to the consortium, the party leaders are caving to some sort of perceived public pressure and suggesting that, oh, well, they would certainly be open to having the leader of the Green Party there after all.

I’m genuinely agnostic on the question of whether May should be there; I think there are defensible arguments to be made for both sides. But the question over whether to include her or not contains a tacit assumption, viz., that the leaders’ debates—as currently run—are themselves worthy democratic exercises. I think they are not.

Start by making a list of all the things people say they dislike about our political culture: the stage-management of public appearances, the scripted way in which politicians stick to their talking points and never answer a direct question, the hyper-partisanship, the casual character assassination, the reduction of opponents positions or views to caricatures…

And then think about what goes on at the leaders’ debates, where virtually every negative aspect of our political culture is exacerbated and amplified. This might be worth it if there was some sort of tradeoff, where voters learned important things about the men and women who were applying for our top political job. Or if the debate served as a platform for the party leaders to put their best face forward, so that we could see them at their most prime ministerial.

But no one could plausibly make that case. For the two decades or so I’ve been paying serious attention, the debates have been a cringe-inducing affair. I can’t see how anyone ever comes away from them thinking that democracy has been well-served; if anything, the debates have probably long served as a powerful instrument of voter suppression.

Given that, it is hard to see why Elizabeth May wants to be involved in the first place. She could even make her exclusion a point of pride: While Harper, Ignatieff, Layton and Duceppe are braying away like jackasses in both official languages, she could take the opportunity to do a little counter-programming: a town hall, a round-table, an academic lecture, a game of ping-pong… who knows? It might actually draw an audience.

Meanwhile, the debates need to be either radically changed, or simply abolished. There are lots of suggestions floating around, some better than others. My own preference would be three or four debates, each conducted according to the rules of passive bilingualism we used in my old department at the University of Montreal: Each participant is entitled to ask, or answer, any question in the official language of his or her choice.

In my ideal scenario, only one of the debates would involve the leaders. The others would be between government ministers and their portfolio critics in the opposition parties.

This would serve two useful functions. First, it would help reduce the “winner-take-all” character of the current debates, where everyone is afraid to take a risk lest there be a fabled knockout punch. Second, it would rehabilitate the principle of cabinet government. Everyone claims to abhor the way our democracy has slipped into governing from the centre, but the leader-centric nature of the debates only reinforces that tendency.

If the debates can’t be altered in this or some similar way, I’d just as soon see them abandoned altogether. Think of it this way: If our elections had evolved without the debates becoming an entrenched exercise, and someone came along and proposed that we establish the four-or-five-ring circus that we’ve had for the past few decades, would anyone think it was a good idea?

There are only two parties that can win the next election, and if May is there, those two parties will get to speak less than half the time. How on earth this is a good idea is beyond me. The fact is, there is really no conceivable reason why the Green party should be there, a party that appeals to just 1 in 14 voters.

Well, Jenn is telling us what the electorate wants so why can't s_c_f?

I don't want Elizabeth May in the English language debates, and I don't want Gilles Duceppe there either. May because I don't see the Green party getting enough of a percentage of votes in any riding to be a serious player, and Duceppe because I can't vote for his party.

John_Edgar on March 30, 2011 at 9:18 am

No, she's telling you what she wants. She doesn't claim to speak for the electorate.

OriginalEmily1 on March 30, 2011 at 10:08 am

But the 14th person still matters.

Besides, the other leaders get lots of media exposure. The debate is almost the only place where I actually heard Ms. May the last time. I wasn't going out of my way to find her, mind you, but so I didn't.

You would think with the prospect of minority governments in the offing the electorate might want to get a look at all the candidates. I can't help but think that protecting Harper is behind the decision to exclude May. It's really Duceppe Harper should be afraid of this time around.

… has become an argument that she should be imposed on your time, instead? Wow.

made_you_look on March 29, 2011 at 11:50 pm

Most emphatically.

2Jenn on March 30, 2011 at 7:57 am

I feel the opposite way. When I watch the debates I want to see the contenders go at it (primarily Iggy and Harper). I don't want to see those two sitting around for 60% of the time saying nothing while the non-contenders talk.

What do people really want to see? The also-rans? Or the contenders? Do I really want to hear Duceppe go on about defending the interests of the separatists for the thousandth time? Do I really want to hear Lizzy talk about her policies that don't have a snowball's chance in heck of ever becoming reality?

The last thing I want to see is Elizabeth May prattle on. I want to see the contenders debate each other. I don't want to see them sitting around for most of the time saying nothing. Think about it. In a room with five people, there are 10 possible 1-on-1 matchups. Therefore, we can expect to see Iggy and Harper debate each other for a measly 10% of the time. The other 90% of the time we will be a watching a conversation involving people who have no chance of winning the election.

Do we want to see Duceppe and May debate each other? Or do we want to see Harper and Iggy debate each other?

s_c_f on March 30, 2011 at 1:22 am

I'm certainly not averse to having a Harper-Ignatieff only debate, but that isn't what we're talking about here.

2Jenn on March 30, 2011 at 8:18 am

There should be an Iggy-Harper debate on one channel, and a May-Layton-Duceppe debate on another channel. Everybody wins!

alfanerd on March 30, 2011 at 12:31 pm

Yeah, that would be funny.

s_c_f on March 30, 2011 at 2:40 pm

Technically, I believe that more Canadians than just those who vote Green want the Green Party in the debates. I don't claim to know what the number is, but I'm CERTAIN that it's higher than 1 in 14.

I won't vote for the Greens, but I certainly want to hear what she says.

novagardener on March 30, 2011 at 2:43 pm

May did reveal in her book that Harper had actually cheated in the last debate by bringing in notes. She may be being punished for that. Some reporter should ask her about that. And we have to ask how far does Harper/PMO/ Conservative Party power extend?

These reservations, legitimate as they are, have nothing to do with May's exclusion. She's just too smart. She is articulate and quick witted. Ignatieff probably doesn't worry about being made to look like a fool, and that's why there are so many attack adds focusing on him. But Harper couldn't hold a candle to her intellect. The other "leaders" don't want to take the risk of facing someone that sharp.

Yeah, she was in the last set of debates in 2008, and her astounding intellect netted her party a grand total of 0 ridings. Zero. Nada. Zilch. Absolutely breathtaking. And this is even though the Liberals pulled their candidate in her riding just to help her out. And she still bombed.

I would love to see crazy Lizzie in the debates. The more people see of her shrill hysterical rants the fewer people vote for her. Ever wonder why she never ran in her adopted home of Cape Breton? It's because we know her all to well down here. That's why she fled to the west coast, hoping people there hadn't had enough of her shenanigans. I suggest anyone debating her ask her pointed questions about her resume and bio. She keeps rewriting both it seems. Last week she indicated she moved from Cape Breton to the west coast because her daughter just finished school there. Her last residence was Central Nova where she ran a futile campaign against McKay and then fled to the west. She has not lived in Cape Breton in decades. Spent most of her adult life in Ottawa, close to the money. Cheers.

Sure, why not? You could tune in to the debate as your one attempt to decide who to vote for and then decide that it's such a gong show with them all railing at each other that you just decide not bother. While I don't necessarily agree with Andrew's point it's not a completely absurd idea.

As an aside, that's kind of how I feel about political ads. Almost every one I've ever heard makes me want to not vote for the party that made it.

Iggy would be Perrier sparkling spring water. Layton would be Hi-C orange soda. Harper would be Coca-Cola. May would be New Coke. Duceppe would be a Pepsi with a Mae West and a Joe Louis, of course.

s_c_f on March 30, 2011 at 7:31 pm

Well, that was easy.

ColdStanding on March 30, 2011 at 11:04 pm

Last time the Greens had representation in the House of Commons (one MP) plus a demonstrated ability to poll more than 5% of the national vote. This time May has no MPs. So I'd rather she sit this one out, giving more time to the others.

In the interest of increasing viewership of our political debates, why not adopt a format that has proven itself successful?

I'm suggesting, of course, making the debates a reality TV series. The show will consist of weekly debates. Each week, viewers will telephone vote for the candidates they thought performed best; the candidate with the fewest votes will be eliminated from the race. The last remaining candidate gets to form the government. We'll call it: So You Think You Can Govern; or, Canada's Next Top Minister.

Well, if you really want them to increase viewership, put them in a squared ring in a stadium, with lots of fireworks, loud rock music, and two obnoxious commentators (I'll refrain from giving my selection for that position). Then bring the politicians out in flashy spandex and throw a folding chair into the ring with them.

A pretty comprehensive report on renewing leaders' debates was put out by Queen's early last year. Exec sum starts at the bottom of page 7, and it's worth a read. There are 9 recommendations for reform, including an independent commission to organize them: http://www.queensu.ca/csd/publications/Reform_Fed…

The recommendations from Queen's are good. I like these two recommendations, on who qualifies, and on having a second debate just one on one:

5)Party inclusion criteria should be three of four: i) 5% support in national polls; ii) a seat in Parliament; iii) a full roster of candidates across the nation; iv) federal funding.

7)In the final weeks of the election campaign, two leaders debates should take place; the first one featuring all qualifying party leaders, and the second featuring the Prime Minister and the party leader from the highest polling opposition party.

The Leader's debate's don't have a great positive effect but could easily have a negative one with a misstep by a participant.

It still ignores the cold fact that our system doesn't directly elect the Prime Minister. It does so indirectly by voting for individual MP's.
I'll be putting focus on my riding where a long standing incumbent has won by increasingly narrow margins and faces a new challenger. The leader's are just there to spout party doctrine until the mean time.

Surely in this day and age some app could be developed that would allow any voter sensing the dangerous approach of suppression while watching the debates to blank the screen and kill the audio (or alternatively switch to a rerun of NCIS).

I wonder if the drama around the Greens' inclusion in these debates is mutually beneficial: On the one hand, the Greens gain a mainstream audience, if not a mainstream status, by being included. But, also, May gets attention just by trying. Even if she is excluded, she builds some cred among her own people for being an outsider and a martyr. It's a win-win. But being seen on the inside is probably more important than throwing an alternative event, if the Greens are going to expand their base. On the other hand, by making a very public decision about who's invited, the major parties bring some attention to their own well-managed event. Further, having people get up in arms about whether or not the Greens should be included lends the debate a sense of legitimacy. If the borders of the debate need to be that closely controlled, then there must be some value to being on the inside – that must be where legitimate political discourse is happening.

Maybe it's time to take the decision out of the hands of this shadowy "consortium." Why do advertising salespeople get to make decisions about how Canadians participate in election conversations anyway?

The airwaves are publicly owned and during elections we should reclaim space for election programming, debates, forums, whatever we need for our democracy and free of their interference. The broadcasters make scads of money off elections by selling time for political advertising. They also sell plenty of advertising during their spin heavy news coverage of election campaigns, so why shouldn't they contribute some air time to fair and free discussions about policy and politics?

What "shadowy" consortium? It consists of the five networks who wish to air the debates. Full stop. They are publicly traded companies who must report to shareholders. No wait, except the CBC, they get a billion+ taxpayer funding and refuse to give out any facts or figures as to what they do with it except demand more taxpayer money.

It will be very interesting to see if there is enough public outcry about this to reverse the decision, like last time.

Somehow I doubt it.

Environmental issues have completely fallen off the radar in this campaign and I think many found her to be a rude and constant interruption in the last debate.

Having said all that…I doubt it will have much impact either way. These "debates" have become quite meaningless and have come to resemble "Question Period" with everybody trying their best to get their "sound bytes" in as the media frantically searches for the "knock out punch."

Passive bilingualism may function well at U de M, but would not be a satisfying experience for many (especially anglophones outside of Quebec) since simultaneous translation while often accurate, is not very engaging. Moreover, with the present party leaders there will be a tendency (despite their best intentions) for English to dominate, thus (quite possibly) further alienating French speaking voters.

However, your suggestion of other televised debates between ministers and their 'shadows' is more appealing. It would provide an opportunity for particular topics (finance, the environment, etc,) to be discussed in detail and remind voters that the political parties consist of more than just the leaders and their immediate entourage.

Getting excluded from the leader's debate (at this stage) is the best thing that could happen from Elizabeth may's perspective – because she's getting some press. Otherwise she'd be largely ignored. so, I say let her in and end this – simply because I want her to fade away.

The Green party officially is running in one riding – Saanich Gulf Islands. They made that choice – to focus on getting her elected. And she/they have been campaigning there non stop with all the resources and perks afforded the leader for what, a year and 1/2 now? So, I say – let her into local debates with Gary Lunn.

If they want to have a round table b**chfest like before – *yawn* – she's well equipped. But I'd rather see a two way (Ignatieff vs Harper optional Layton) featured elsewhere. it might even be an adult discussion.

I would like to see a debate between the oppostion party leaders only! – after all when you get all party leaders there lately they all spend all their time focusing on the PM – WE GET IT everyone hates harper BUT the real fight at the polls for those who don't want the CPC is between the other parties. I would like to see Iggy , jack, Gilles and Elizabeth go at each other :) could be a lot more interesting becuase let's be honest that is where the struggle is if you want change then wwhich of the oppostion parties do you want to represent that change as it stands all most people know about them is they don't like Harper – duh!

I think the debate is important but I agree with Mr Potter that there needs to be a stronger focus on substance.

Unfortunately the debate is a TV event moreso than an election event: this means you have to keep in mind that it's made to attract viewers and not raise the bar in terms of ideas. I believe the debate needs to be taken away from traditional media and put up on the Internet by institutions such as schools or the parties themselves in order to improve it.

He can only get away with being the honest, blunt guy that he is because he really only has to pander to one specific group of people. He makes no bones about the fact that he's there for Quebec and Quebec only. If he represented any of the other national parties, he'd have a little tougher time being who he is.

That being said, he's totally at the top of the list of leaders I'd like to go drinking with.

Boycott TV advertised products.
Unless Green Party leader Elizabeth May is allowed to participate in the debate, people who feel this is totally unjust should protest by boycotting the products advertised on television — and tell the companies that advertise why you are no longer buying their products.
Boycott TV advertised products.
Boycott them now.

Troll….'In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.'

Since Macleans sets the discussion, we don't have trolls on here….beyond the odd post or so, and they are easily ignored.

How come the so-called "Green" Elizabeth May never dares to discuss Canada's no. 1 environmental problem, mass immigration which leads to endless urban sprawl, more wear and tear on the infrastructure of our cities, more demand for energy, more cars on the road and tons of other problems? The fact the she prefers politically correct silence over actively taking on this issue means she has nothing important to say that would earn her a place at the leaders' debates. There's already enough intellectually deficient political correctoids getting air time in Canada.

i suppose that's an explanation. as to how she'd be better of politically – that's a tough one, but if she cares about the environment more than her political career, she should probably advocate for the environment within one of the established parties.

Dear God, Lizzie was never in anyone's cabinet…Lyin' Brian occasionally played to her vanity and pretended to consult with her…and then go on his merry way doing nothing about the environment like every PM since(thank God). For pretending to listen to her crazy rants it made brownie points for him with the green numbskulls as the rest of the country was ready to string him up. After all the lying to parliament, taking money in brown envelopes from international arms dealers that has come out since, she still says he's the best PM we ever had. So much for her judgement, "intellect" and integrity.

The debate should between the two parties that have any kind of chance at winning and the others, including Layton and the traitor should not be there. There is never enough time for a satisfactory number of 'quality' questions with a crowd on the stage. I quit watching because I have no interest in what the fringe groups have to say.

Who is this shadowy backroom cabal called a "consortium", and why do they get to dictate this? We don't even need them involved. Put it on CPAC and Youtube if we have to. A one on one would be a much better debate then the nonsense the "consortium" puts out.

Elizabeth May's silly ego trip should not be indulged by allowing her to participate in the debate. She has already done enough damage to the country by syphoning off votes that might have kept Harper at bay.

We need our politicians debating issues in a Public forum ( where citizens can put forth their questions) in order to make informed choices on whom we vote for as transparency is not exactly a strong suit with our present Prime Minister ,

When you have a Prime Minister who is quoted**as saying: " We're not interested in multiple debates " I would have to ask him to define who the ' We're ' is that he's referring to . We live in a Democracy not an Autocracy Mr. Harper.

Potter feels there's a "perceived public pressure" wanting Elizabeth May to be part of a Democratic Debate on issues?

Perhaps Potter hasn't visited his ophthalmologist for decades, but the rest of us who did witness the last debates saw that the best and the brightest (CTV's Fife/Oliver confirmed) was Ms May with her sharp wit and intelligence asking questions that the rest of them were stunned by.

If Potter wants to drown out yet anothe democratic voice before this historic Election, we have a suggestion for him to apply for a Spin Doctor's job with the Village Idiot currently in charge of this much-maligned country. We're certain the country bumpkins will let him in their inner sanctum. He deserves a place there!

Notice: Your email may not yet have been verified. Please check your email, click the link to verify your address, and then submit your comment. If you can't find this email, access your profile editor to re-send the confirmation email. You must have a verified email to submit a comment. Once you have done so, check again.

Almost Done!

Please confirm the information below before signing up.

{* #socialRegistrationForm *}
{* socialRegistration_firstName *}
{* socialRegistration_lastName *}
{* socialRegistration_emailAddress *}
{* socialRegistration_displayName *}
By clicking "Create Account", I confirm that I have read and understood each of the website terms of service and privacy policy and that I agree to be bound by them.